Senate Standing Committee on Education

We have a motion to adjourn. Mr. Glazer, I guess you're getting prepared to go to the assembly because they have pool games like that over there. So we're still in the Senate, though. He's presenting for Portantino. What's the recommendation? All right. He's doing all of them. Is he doing Newman first?

I'm going to do 347 first. Then on behalf of.

That's fine. So up next is file item six, SB 347, by our esteemed chair. The motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. With that, the floor is yours, sir.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Existing law authorizes the Commission on Teacher credentialing to issue credentials for teaching specialties, including but not limited to, early childhood education. Over the past few years, in response to the implementation of universal tk and preschool, the Commission has prioritized expansion efforts with respect to ECE. California's master plan for early learning and Care currently calls for the creation of prekindergarten through grade three credentials.

The Commission on Teacher Credentialing recently adopted proposed regulations to establish the pk three specialist instruction credential, which is designed to authorize service in prekindergarten through grade three to meet the needs of preschool and transitional kindergarten teachers. SB 347 simply acknowledges in statute that the Commission on Teacher credentialing jurisdiction now includes the awarding of credentials for preschool as well as for kindergarten through grade 12.

This Bill is a measure to clean up the EDCO to reflect the updated circumstances for ECE and does not create any new credentialing burdens on early childhood educators. I am respectfully asking for your. I vote this morning.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any primary witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in the room? In support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I think we'll go ahead and establish a quorum first and then we can go to questions, comments, concerns. So with that Clerk.

Newman? Here. Newman, here. Wilk? Present. Wilk, present. Cortese? Glazer? Glazer, here. Grove? Grove, here. Laird? Smallwood-Cuavas? Smallwood-Cuavas, here.

With that, we have a quorum, so pulling it back to Committee. Any questions, comments, concerns? Have a motion to move the Bill by Senator Glazer. With that, sir, you may close.

Appreciate that. Again, this creates no new burdens. Simply Ed cleanup to reflect the new credentialing requirement. Asking for an aye vote today.

Thank you, sir. And now we'll take roll.

File item six, SB 347. Newman. Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Newman? Newman, aye. Wilk? Aye. Wilk, aye. Cortese? Glazer? Glazer, aye. Grove? Grove, aye. Laird? Laird, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

All right, that's six votes, so it's out. We will keep the roll open for outstanding Members. And again, it's do pass to appropriations. Now we're moving to file item four, SB 691. Senator Portantino. The motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee and with that floor again is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. Committee Members, on behalf of Senator Portantino, I'm presenting SB 691. Let me begin by explicitly accepting on his behalf the amendments outlined in the analysis. Currently, from among the candidates presented by the California Association of Student Councils, only one student member is appointed by the Governor. This bill would increase that number from one to three.

It is the responsibility of the State Board of Education to consider and adopt various regulations and standards that govern the state's public school system and adopt curriculum frameworks for grades K through 12. The goal of SB 691 is to facilitate a greater voice for students so that they can directly engage in these important policy discussions and thereby contribute to better policies which affect California's public school systems and its students.

Increasing the number of student representatives from one to three will make a meaningful difference in ensuring that student voices are heard and that student interests are considered in ways that ensure a better and more inclusive system within California's educational systems. It is for these reasons that I respectfully ask for your aye vote this morning.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support? Any other witnesses in support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Anybody in the room at all? I'm getting ready to go. Bueller. Bueller. Okay with that? Let's pull it back to the Committee for any questions. Comments? Senator Glazer once again moves the bill. He's the new Senator Archuleta, so congrats on that. Any comments at all with that. Go ahead and close.

On behalf of Senator Portantino, I'm respectfully asking for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir. With that, let's call the roll.

Final item four, SB 691, Portantino motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

So that's four to two. We'll leave the roll open. Are you not doing the next one, sir? No. You're not doing Senator Cortese?

Okay, I'm handing the gavel back to you. That's good.

No.

All right, well done by the Vice Chair. Hopefully I can maintain his standard. And now, next, with the two bills to be reconsidered. These are vote only. As I mentioned earlier, those bills are number 1 and 2. Senator Grove, we are ready to take those up. Madam Chair, please call the roll. I mean, Madam Clerk, we do need a motion.

I'm sorry, I move.

We have a motion for Senator Wilk. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

File Item one, SB 292, Grove. Motion is do pass to governance and finance Committee. Newman no. Wilk aye. Cortese. Glazer no. Grove aye. Laird no. Smallwood-Cuevas no.

Did we vote on both at once or two separate?

No.

Okay, and the next Bill, please.

File Item two, SCA five, Grove. Motion is be adopted and re-refer to the elections and constitutional amendments Committee. Newman, no. Newman, no. Wilk, aye. Wilk, aye. Cortese? Glazer? Glazer, no. Grove, aye. Grove, aye. Laird. Laird, no. Smallwood-Cuevas no. WIlk aye.

Very good. We'll leave those both open. We've got four no's to two yeses for both of those bills. And now we are waiting on two authors, Senator Skinner and Senator Cortesi. I've always thought this would be the time, like on a reality TV show. We should have, like, a crowd warmer upper. It would keep you all entertained. I know Senator Wilk could do that if he wanted to. And we'll let both of those Members know that we're waiting for them. Good morning and welcome, Senator Skinner. Please do not rush, but whenever you are ready. Do not rush.

Senator Skinner will be presenting SB 56. Whenever you are ready, you may proceed.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair Members. SB 56 purpose is to allow the University of California at Berkeley to transfer ownership of a student housing facility called the Rochdale Apartments to the Berkeley Student Cooperative Association. The Berkeley Student Cooperative Association, which is BSCC, has operated Roachdale from the day it opened. The organization itself was founded in 1933. It's the largest student cooperative Association housing cooperative in the United States and it houses now in their various facilities 1300 students.

So as I pointed out, the land and some of the construction costs of the building originally were invested by UC, but the student Cooperative Association has managed it from the day it opened. So, this was in the early 70s. And what the University wants to transfer that ownership to allow BSC to be able to get streamlined approvals for new financing to upgrade the building because the building is in need of upgrade.

So that's the purpose of the Bill and we have to do it statutorily because of some rule and code. And I want to call my witnesses, which are Jason Murphy from UC, office of the President, and Sin Gomez from the Berkeley Student Cooperative Association.

Ms. Murphy, please come forward. We're back to the way it's supposed to be, using the table. Welcome. Please proceed. Mr.

Chair and Members, Jason Murphy, on behalf of the University of California, proud to be here today in support of this Bill. As the Senator noted, the University's sole interest here is ensuring that affordable, adequate housing remains available in the Berkeley community. University of California has been leasing this property to the Berkeley student Cooperative for over 50 years at a dollar per year. Our interest here is only ensuring that it continue to be to serve as student housing.

However, because of the seismic issues, it will be much more expensive for the cooperative to Fund and perform those duties around seismic issues if the University of California continues to hold the title to the land. So, this Bill simply allows us to transfer the title to ensure and to protect the region's interests. It would be done under a reversionary grant deed so that if it were to not be used for student housing in the future for any reason, it would revert back to the University's interest.

But for now, we believe that given the 50-year track record, we're very assured that it will continue to be used in the way it's been intended in the past. And again, proud to be in support of the Bill.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Committee. My name is Macias Gomez. I'm the Berkeley Student cooperative Vice President of external affairs and I'm honored to be speaking with you all on SB 56. As a Member of Rochdale myself, the land transfer is deeply personal to my wellness. As a Member and student, the BSc has served as a safe harbor for UC Berkeley's underrepresented students like myself. For the last 50 years and the last 90 years of our organization.

SB 56 is a crucial step in the investment of the cooperative movement, and this is the first step in demonstrating the state's support for the largest housing student cooperative in North America. The Berkeley Student Cooperative is a 501 Member and student run nonprofit that provides low-cost housing and food to UC Berkeley's students. Through collaborative and communal housing. The BSE provides the needs of low-income students and serves the Members regardless of socioeconomic status.

What makes Rochdale so special is the fact that it is an apartment building offering 259 beds to some of Berkeley's most low-income students, housing students between $601,000 per month, which is surprisingly an astonishing lower than what anywhere else you would find in the bay. Out of our 20 units, Rochdale and Fenwick are home to some of the highest number of low income disabled and students of color, formed 90 years ago to help poor students in 1933 access housing, food and community.

By utilizing cooperative economies, the BSc continues to provide quality affordable housing and is one of the last remaining affordable housing options for Berkeley students today. In the beginning of 2022, our lease with UC Berkeley had been expired and the UC was beginning the lease negotiations with us and we were tasked with $16 million worth of seismic retrofitting on an expedited timeline.

This put the BSC between a rock and a hard place, potentially losing over 150 affordable housing units to an institution that has historically underserved its underrepresented students in the search for for profit housing alternatives. Or the BSE would be forced to raise rent on its over 1200 Members to provide the required finances for the expedited retrofits. Through cooperation and the tireless labor of the Save Rochdale Coalition and the negotiations team, we find ourselves here today before the Legislature asking for your cooperation as well.

In the process to ensure that the coops are able to sustain themselves while planning this large scale retrofitting, SB 56 will allow the BSc to proceed with housing students that are the highest need in the Bay Area and beginning its initial stages in developing a cooperative economy amongst the BSc, the state Legislature and the UC that can be nurtured to sustain the wellness of all low income students in the Bay Area and hopefully across California.

As a 2023 article from Mercury News notes, the tally of homeless students in the Bay Area increased 30% between 2019 and 2020, and we must intervene to invest in cooperative housing. At this point, it is far too late already.

Wrap up, please.

Thank you so much for listening to what I have to say on SB 56 and we at the Berkeley student cooperative urge you to support SB 56 to ensure that low-income students in the Bay Area are retained and supported.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses here who'd like to testify in support of the Bill? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name, your organization and your position. Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. No witnesses at all. Okay, let us bring it back to the Committee. Any Committee. Any questions for Senator Skinner? We've got a motion from Senator Glazer.

Senator Skinner, I just want to note that this provides an exemption to the Stall Act, which is unprecedented but necessary. And you may touch on this, but I'd say this is a creative solution to a pressing problem. Glad to support the Bill, if you'd like to close.

I appreciate that, chair. Yes, it is the Stall act. I didn't give that specific. And we wouldn't, as has been explained, be asking it, except for the fact that by UC's continual ownership handicaps the Student Cooperative Association from being able to get the financing to do the repairs. So, as has been presented, that's the way to accomplish this. And I think it's a good way.

And it also ensures both with how the University wrote the transfer legally, that if for any reason the BSCC were to stop operating, decide not to, it would go back to UC so we could continue to have it as available student housing. So, I lived in BSCC housing when I was an undergrad. Was one of the ways I was able to afford a school. That's really fantastic, this cooperative Association. With that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And with that, we have a motion from Senator Glazer. Madam Clerk, please call the roll file.

Item three, SB 56. Skinner motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Newman.

Aye. Newman? Aye. Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Cortase? Cortese, aye. Glazer? Glazer, aye. Grove? Grove, aye. Laird? Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas, aye.

Very good. And that brings us to our final Bill of the morning. Senator Cortese, I believe you're up. I'm sorry. SB 56. We'll leave it open for Senator learn. You may proceed when ready, Senator.

Thank you, Chair and Members, I'm here to present SB 483 this morning a Bill prohibiting prone restraint, a technique that physically or mechanically restrains students in a face down position in all California schools. California law currently allows prone restraint to be used in schools by trained personnel and stipulates that the student's hands can't be held behind their back. Staff must also observe the pupil for any signs of physical distress throughout its use.

Even with those safeguards, this technique is still one of the most dangerous restraints used in schools because it restricts the student's airway and has the potential to be fatal. Despite the US Department of Education recommending its elimination, prone restraint is unfortunately still in practice in some states, including California. According to California, the California Department of Education data obtained from assemblymember Weber's passage of AB 2657 in the 2022-2023 school year, California schools used physical restraints on students 6785 times.

Though just 14% of the student population, students with disabilities, endured 95.5% of those physical restraints. Moreover, prone restraints are applied at a higher rate against black students. According to findings by the Sacramento B, SB 43 seeks to prohibit the use of prone restraint in California and join the more than 30 other states that have taken the necessary steps to protect children from the dangers of this technique.

In 201813 year old Max Benson tragically passed away at an El Dorado Hill school after being held in a prone restraint for an hour. We're honored to be joined here today by Max's mother. As a parent and as parents, many of us, it's very, very difficult to imagine what she's gone through. Your vote today will honor Max's memory, of course, but more importantly, perhaps help ensure that similar tragedies never occur again. With us today, we have Stacia Langley, Max Spence's mother.

Additionally, here as a technical witness is Dr. Melaura Tomaino, who's the co-founder and principal at Port View Preparatory. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Ms. Langley, please come forward and welcome. And please come to the table. Not to the table. We're glad to have you here today. Welcome.

Thanks for having me here.

Thank you.

I think you have to hit the button on the.

Okay.

Oh, okay. Very good.

I have a tiny voice, and if I try to force it, I'll sound like a goose, so forgive me. My name is Stacia Langley. I have lived in Davis most of my life, and I graduated from UC Davis. My children attended the public schools there. I am here to express my strong support for SB 483 because my son, Max, cannot. In 2018, he was killed by a teacher who put him in a prone restraint.

His classmates watched while the life drained out of him for over the course of 30 or 40 minutes. I think it's impossible to adequately describe what it's like to lose a child, especially when you know that they died a slow, painful, and terrifying death at the hands of somebody who was supposed to educate and care for him. Max was a bright and hilarious kid. He could do more than light up a room. He lit up our entire lives.

Every member of our family struggles daily with the darkness created by his absence. If this Bill had been enacted and enforced in the fall of 2018, Max would be alive today. Prone restraint is barbaric and deadly, and I have no doubt that the next young victim is sitting in a California classroom this morning. And I urge everyone to help save that child's life by supporting SB 483.

Thank you, and I'm sorry for your loss. Dr. Tomaino, anything to add?

Yes.

Chair and Senators, I am Dr. Melaura Erickson-Tomaino, and I'm a board-certified behavior analyst and clinical psychologist. I have served students with disabilities for 25 years and serve as the cofounder and principal at Portview Preparatory, a nonpublic school that serves over 50 California school districts who rely on us to educate their students, who demonstrate the most severe, challenging behaviors, and who require significant services and supports.

My partner, Dr. Edward Miguel, and I have never allowed the use of prone restraints at Portview, as we saw firsthand how dangerous these techniques are, and recognize that educators have an ethical obligation to implement evidence based interventions. Prone restraint is not supported by peer reviewed research and has no therapeutic benefit.

Over the years, in educational settings where prone restraint is utilized, we have seen tragedy after tragedy occur due to an over reliance on restraint rather than intervention, forced compliance rather than understanding and outdated responses rather than expertise. Allowing prone restraint creates a culture that promotes a power differential where prone restraint becomes the first and only intervention used. Even when performed by trained personnel, it is often still done incorrectly and dangerously.

Not only does prone restraint pose serious risks to our students, it is also overutilized with students with disabilities. And in a state that promotes diversity and equality, educators are disproportionately restraining students of color, especially black students. 37 states have banned prone restraint. California has not. The risks of not adopting this Bill are too great. I urge you to imagine your child, niece, nephew, or grandchild. Imagine them heading off to school now. Imagine them laying face down their last words, I can't breathe.

Their bedroom empty, as they will never return. California can do better. Let's not lose another life. Please keep our students safe and pass SB 483. Thank you, Senator Cortese, for this very important legislation.

Thank you for your testimony. Is anybody here in the witness room would like testify in support of the measure? If so, please come forward. I'd ask you to state your name, your organization, your position.

Nicole Wardelman on behalf of The Children's Partnership and support. Thank you, Ms. Wardelman.

Eric Harris with Disability Rights California, strong support and sponsor of the Bill.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning. Rachel Bogwitt, on behalf of ACLU, California Action in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Jimmy Fremgen, on behalf of RespectAbility, we're. A national disability nonprofit and we're in support.

Thank you.

Jennifer Abenat. I'm a friend of the family and an advocate and I'm in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Brendan White. I am also a neighbor and a friend of the Langley's and Max Benson here in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Sheriff Dustin Collier, founding partner of Civil Rights Law Firm Collier Socks LLP, an attorney for the Langley family here in strong support for this Bill.

Thank you, Elizabeth Malay, partner at Collier Socks Civil Rights Law Firm. Strong support of this Bill. Also a friend of the Langley family.

Thank you. Anybody else know? Does anybody here, like, testify in opposition to the measure? Seeing none. Let's bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Got a motion for Senator Glazer. I'm sorry, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, please.

I just wanted to say to the two witnesses and experts today, thank you so much for your courage, for your story, and sharing that experience, to educate others. It was very moving and also shed some real detail on the impacts of this practice. So thank you so much for being here.

Let me add to the friends of the family who came out today. Thank you. Not an easy thing to do. We have a motion? Do we have a motion? Senator Arcelletta, I'm sorry. I really did miss it. Senator Glazer, you moved the Bill. I apologize. Senator Glazer. Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Yes, Mr. Chair. First of all, again, just to thank the witnesses, Ms. Langley, for her courage on behalf of millions, literally millions of students currently, and those to come in future generations to stand up and speak. To come here to the Committee with such moving testimony, as one of my colleagues just said, is beyond admirable. Thank you for that.

And although Ms. Langley wasn't the source of the Bill idea, all of us here as Senators kind of refer to how these things start sometimes as Bill ideas. It was an activist Member of the disability community in my own district who asked me to meet with him at a Starbucks one day and began to recount what happened to him.

He survived what would otherwise be a similar episode, as you might imagine, his own testimony to me that day as he, in fits and starts, tried to present what he wanted to see happen was itself very emotional and quite moving. And I think any of my colleagues here would have done what I did and quickly accept the responsibility for bringing the Bill forward. So with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, we have a motion. Senator Glazer, please call the role file.

Item five, SB 483, Cortese. Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Newman aye. Wilk aye. Cortese aye. Glazer aye. Grove aye. Laird aye. Smallwood-Cuevas aye.

That Bill is out six votes to zero, and let us now. I'm sorry, seven votes to zero. Thank you. And I think we have a couple of open votes, or at least one, sir. Madam Clerk, on any open measures, if you could please identify the Bill and call the roll.

File item one, SB 292, growth motion is do passed to governance and finance Committee. The current vote is four no's and two ayes, with the chair voting no. Cortese, SB 292

That Bill fails with two yes votes and four no votes.

Okay, file item two, sea five, Grove motion has be adopted and referred to elections and constitutional amendments Committee. Current vote is four no's and two ayes.

Okay, that Bill fails with two yes votes and four no votes.

File item three, SB 56, Skinner motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is six ayes and no no's.

That Bill is out seven votes to zero.

Five, item four, SB 691, Portantino motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is four ayes and two no's, with the chair voting aye.

That Bill is out five votes to two.

File item six, SB 347, Newman motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. Current vote is six ayes and no no's, with the chair voting aye.

And that Bill is out seven votes to zero. That closes out our agenda for today. Thank you to all the witnesses. Thank you to staff. With that, the Senate Committee education is adjourned. Thank.